2 ms·

That "cheaper to make" thing is based upon absolutely nothing whatsoever, likely as a repurposing of the somewhat factually based reason why 16:9 panels overtoo

That "cheaper to make" thing is based upon absolutely nothing whatsoever, likely as a repurposing of the somewhat factually based reason why 16:9 panels overtook 16:10 (though that's completely irrelevant in this context, given that the Nexus is 16:10). Regarding the Pixel -- a device with shockingly little deployment (and whose form was driven by a lot more than the idea screen size) -- 3:2 is 1.5:1. The iPad is 1.33:1. 16:10 is 1.6:1. Meaning the Pixel is significantly closer to the ratio of the Nexus 7 than the iPad. So what now? What does that prove? Now as to the web being "mainly vertical", the single and only place where that is true are a few spartan text blogs. Content sites are a rich cacaphony of horizontally distributed content -- Wikipedia is informational sidebars of all sorts, as an example. I find those experiences dramatically better on wider screens.

rayiner 13y ago
The punchline here is, of course, that the iPad is the one with the wider screen.
sp332 13y ago
A15" diagonal screen has much less area at 16:9 than at 4:3. That's why it's cheaper. Anyway, how can you say websites are more horizontal than vertical? On any kind if site, you are much more likely to have to scroll vertically to get what you want. That means increasing visible vertical space improves your experience more than adding horizontal space will. Edit: I run my web browser in the left half of my 1920x1200 screens because when I maximize them I feel like the window is much too empty. So there's room for preferences, of course. But I think most content on the web is taller than it is wide.